Monday, August 12, 2002
Chris Burgwald at Veritas asks "Is Christian Faith a mental work?"
I became interested in this topic several months ago. I noticed an interesting dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants on this subject. Protestants to whom I put the question, such as my Mennonite partner and others, would view "faith" and "works" as hermetically sealed categories. Catholics, on the other hand, would acknowledge that faith was a kind of choice or act of will, and therefore would view "faith" as involving "work."
The source of the Catholic view obviously has its root in the historic and contemporary distinction between "living faith" and "dead faith." A faith without works is a "dead faith" which is tantamount to no faith. Catholics are therefore more inclined to see faith as involving a choice or a commitment and therefore a kind of "work."
I became interested in this topic several months ago. I noticed an interesting dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants on this subject. Protestants to whom I put the question, such as my Mennonite partner and others, would view "faith" and "works" as hermetically sealed categories. Catholics, on the other hand, would acknowledge that faith was a kind of choice or act of will, and therefore would view "faith" as involving "work."
The source of the Catholic view obviously has its root in the historic and contemporary distinction between "living faith" and "dead faith." A faith without works is a "dead faith" which is tantamount to no faith. Catholics are therefore more inclined to see faith as involving a choice or a commitment and therefore a kind of "work."
Saturday, August 10, 2002
Amazing
Meryl Yourish offers this nuanced and principled philosophical exegesis on the the subject of imposing morality and the "right to choose:"
Get that? The man's "choice" must be made before "he plays." If he had "kept his pants on," there would have been no trouble. The woman was apparently in the other room doing her tax returns, and must have been very surprised when she realized that she had become pregnant through telekinesis. Seriously, it appears that pro-abortion advocates do not believe that a woman makes a "choice" before she "plays." Instead, she gets the "right to choose" after she plays because - per the Supreme Court's decision in Casey - "choice" is the unifying principle that underlies humanity's existential quest for meaning. Correlatively, of course, in Roe v. Wade the "right to choose" had its genesis in considerations of avoiding the the stigmatizing effect of unmarried pregnancy and the restriction of a woman's life choices that necessarily flow from having a child.
Not that a mere man has any interest in an existential quests for meaning, or in avoiding social stigma and the dramatic change in life choices that becoming a father can cause. After all, "he didn't keep his pants on." "He played" and "he must pay"
So, for the man, the decision to have sex is a moral decision, which may be used to justify the subsequent restrictions of his options. On the other hand, for a woman, the decision to have sex is apparently not a moral decision, and her decision can never justify a restriction to her choices in life. Does anyone else see a double-standard here?
Let's face it, a man's obligation to pay child support is based on pragmatism The State and society are not going to underwrite the support of children when there is an able bodied parent around to pay. If that policy causes men to make informed decisions about sexual conduct, so much the better. But if "pro-choice" advocates actually believed in the principles that are set out in Casey and Roe, and which they chatechistically recite when convenient, they should support the idea of allowing the father to change his mind after he "played," just like the mother, and to "opt out" of fatherhood and child support. Otherwise, they should admit either (a) they are hypocrites or (b) they are in favor of "imposing morality" in the area of sex and reproduction, just like the anti-abortion advocates, only they prefer the imposition of a different morality.
Finally, after reading this nuanced solution to the question of double-standards, I think that someone could be tempted to say that they pragmatically believe that a mother should not be permitted to kill her unborn child - after all "she was playing around" and "she should pay" and "if she had kept her pants on, then there would have been no problem." But saying that would be insensitive and wrong since it would be imposing morality, which is just about the worst thing one can do in liberal America.
Postscript In contrast, Andrea Harris at Spleenville World Domination Headquarters has a post where she takes a thoughtful stab at applying the principles underlying Roe v. Wade to the possibility that men and women in this area are equal and responsible moral agents. Although her discussion is tentative, she accurately intuits that she runs the risk of igniting a "flame-war." She is not entirely dissappointed in this intuition since at least one commenter boils her argument down to "everybody should mind their own business" as if the man had no interest in either (a) his putative fatherhood and/or (b) his future as a source of child support payments and the State had no interest in either issue, which it does, as can be attested by anyone who has spent a morning in divorce court. The fact is that just as the man makes a moral decision by engaging in sexual activity, and in doing so, invites the State into his bedroom, so does the woman. As for Ms. Harris, kudos on attempting principled analysis in public, and you're one blog closer to your goal of World Domination.
Meryl Yourish offers this nuanced and principled philosophical exegesis on the the subject of imposing morality and the "right to choose:"
I agree that it sucks that a man has no legal choice in the matter, but must pay child support if he is the father. But here's the thing that always gets ignored in this argument: If the man had kept it in his pants in the first place, there'd be no baby to pay child support for. That wasn't an immaculate conception. And the rules are: You play, you pay.
If men don't want to have to face that problem, then it is incumbent on them to be sure to use reliable birth control.
Get that? The man's "choice" must be made before "he plays." If he had "kept his pants on," there would have been no trouble. The woman was apparently in the other room doing her tax returns, and must have been very surprised when she realized that she had become pregnant through telekinesis. Seriously, it appears that pro-abortion advocates do not believe that a woman makes a "choice" before she "plays." Instead, she gets the "right to choose" after she plays because - per the Supreme Court's decision in Casey - "choice" is the unifying principle that underlies humanity's existential quest for meaning. Correlatively, of course, in Roe v. Wade the "right to choose" had its genesis in considerations of avoiding the the stigmatizing effect of unmarried pregnancy and the restriction of a woman's life choices that necessarily flow from having a child.
Not that a mere man has any interest in an existential quests for meaning, or in avoiding social stigma and the dramatic change in life choices that becoming a father can cause. After all, "he didn't keep his pants on." "He played" and "he must pay"
So, for the man, the decision to have sex is a moral decision, which may be used to justify the subsequent restrictions of his options. On the other hand, for a woman, the decision to have sex is apparently not a moral decision, and her decision can never justify a restriction to her choices in life. Does anyone else see a double-standard here?
Let's face it, a man's obligation to pay child support is based on pragmatism The State and society are not going to underwrite the support of children when there is an able bodied parent around to pay. If that policy causes men to make informed decisions about sexual conduct, so much the better. But if "pro-choice" advocates actually believed in the principles that are set out in Casey and Roe, and which they chatechistically recite when convenient, they should support the idea of allowing the father to change his mind after he "played," just like the mother, and to "opt out" of fatherhood and child support. Otherwise, they should admit either (a) they are hypocrites or (b) they are in favor of "imposing morality" in the area of sex and reproduction, just like the anti-abortion advocates, only they prefer the imposition of a different morality.
Finally, after reading this nuanced solution to the question of double-standards, I think that someone could be tempted to say that they pragmatically believe that a mother should not be permitted to kill her unborn child - after all "she was playing around" and "she should pay" and "if she had kept her pants on, then there would have been no problem." But saying that would be insensitive and wrong since it would be imposing morality, which is just about the worst thing one can do in liberal America.
Postscript In contrast, Andrea Harris at Spleenville World Domination Headquarters has a post where she takes a thoughtful stab at applying the principles underlying Roe v. Wade to the possibility that men and women in this area are equal and responsible moral agents. Although her discussion is tentative, she accurately intuits that she runs the risk of igniting a "flame-war." She is not entirely dissappointed in this intuition since at least one commenter boils her argument down to "everybody should mind their own business" as if the man had no interest in either (a) his putative fatherhood and/or (b) his future as a source of child support payments and the State had no interest in either issue, which it does, as can be attested by anyone who has spent a morning in divorce court. The fact is that just as the man makes a moral decision by engaging in sexual activity, and in doing so, invites the State into his bedroom, so does the woman. As for Ms. Harris, kudos on attempting principled analysis in public, and you're one blog closer to your goal of World Domination.
Ono has posted a response - actually earlier this week - to my prior posts on slavery reparations over at Ono's thoughts. The burden of his argument is that "emotion" - or to put it more precisely "intuitive understanding" - is sufficient in this area and superior to (presumably, self-serving) structured arguments. While it might seem easy to dismiss a position that appeals to "intuition" out of hand, there is in fact an interesting discussion concering this concept in the light of an article I just read in Communio. I will present that discussion in another post.
On the other hand, the burden of my argument was to present an understanding of history that took into account the relevant historical experience as the participants understood it. Ono challenges my account - or narrative, if you would - of American history. Ono writes:
The point, though, of my description of the actual changes in American governance that resulted from the Civil War was to emphasize the importance of the Civil War. It's interesting that in each of my posts, I discuss the significance of the Civil War as a penance for the great sin of slavery. I discuss the human and material cost of the Civil War. I point out how Lincoln conceived of the Civil War in religious terms.
On the other hand, nowhere does Ono mention the Civil War; it apparently drops out of the mental map of the slavery reparation advocates. There are probably convenient reasons for that, but it is my intuition that that ignoring the Civil War is unjust. The Civil War was important, it was about slavery, and pace the Civil War Amendments, it transformed the American system of government. The tremendous cost of the Civil War is discussed in this article, which argues that the cost of the Civil War in an accounting sense would more than constitute "forty acres and a mule." [By the way, that policy probably should have been implemented. But, I wonder, what would the shape of subsequent history have been like if the Radical Republicans had been really succesful in adopting a punitive Reconstruction policy, complete with confiscations and mass executions?]
Ono also argues that the Greek tradition of slavery was infinitely more humane than that practiced in the Southern States. I am not entirely sure why this is important in the slavery reparations debate. I think it may be because of my argument that slavery was more or less normal before Western Civilization took a radically different direction, which would seem to credit Western Civilization with a wisdom, courage and progressive attitude that would undermine the Manichian view that informs the reparations debate. My historical point remains more or less the same. I am not certain if Ono's description of Greek slavery was normal anywhere in the Greek world, but I am absolutely sure that his description is not true of Sparta and its Helots, who were enslaved in a system far more severe than that known to the ante-bellum South because of their "race." Also, my understanding is that the early Church's earliest and most significant interaction with slavery would have been with Roman slavery. I somehow don't think that all of the historic slave revolts occurred because Roman slaves were merely dissatisfied with waiting until they were thirty before receiving manumission. Further my understanding from reading Orlando Patterson is that all systems of slavery had the humiliation and social death of the slave as a common feature.
Let me emphasize, no thinking person can be anything but repulsed by every form of slavery. Through its message that all men are moral beings created in God's image, Christianity had in it the capacity to end slavery. In fact, it eventually did. But the issue of what I owe today because of something no one in my family was ever involved with is a completely different moral and legal question.
On the other hand, the burden of my argument was to present an understanding of history that took into account the relevant historical experience as the participants understood it. Ono challenges my account - or narrative, if you would - of American history. Ono writes:
Another thing that Mr. Bradley mentions that bothers me is how he carefully parses U.S. history into different eras and argues against presenting the U.S. as one continuous entity. (Why then do we celebrate the Fourth?) I find that argument to be without credibilty. It, however, moves the discussion into the issue of statehood and what and who is the state? And it raises issues regarding the relationship of the states with the Federal government. I am not prepared to deal with these questions. I can speak of the notion of state in Catholic theology but I have no similar competence in U.S. political history. I think Mr Bradley's divisions are a convenient way to absolve the U.S. of any responsibility, which issue was the point of my Nazi example in my first post.
The point, though, of my description of the actual changes in American governance that resulted from the Civil War was to emphasize the importance of the Civil War. It's interesting that in each of my posts, I discuss the significance of the Civil War as a penance for the great sin of slavery. I discuss the human and material cost of the Civil War. I point out how Lincoln conceived of the Civil War in religious terms.
On the other hand, nowhere does Ono mention the Civil War; it apparently drops out of the mental map of the slavery reparation advocates. There are probably convenient reasons for that, but it is my intuition that that ignoring the Civil War is unjust. The Civil War was important, it was about slavery, and pace the Civil War Amendments, it transformed the American system of government. The tremendous cost of the Civil War is discussed in this article, which argues that the cost of the Civil War in an accounting sense would more than constitute "forty acres and a mule." [By the way, that policy probably should have been implemented. But, I wonder, what would the shape of subsequent history have been like if the Radical Republicans had been really succesful in adopting a punitive Reconstruction policy, complete with confiscations and mass executions?]
Ono also argues that the Greek tradition of slavery was infinitely more humane than that practiced in the Southern States. I am not entirely sure why this is important in the slavery reparations debate. I think it may be because of my argument that slavery was more or less normal before Western Civilization took a radically different direction, which would seem to credit Western Civilization with a wisdom, courage and progressive attitude that would undermine the Manichian view that informs the reparations debate. My historical point remains more or less the same. I am not certain if Ono's description of Greek slavery was normal anywhere in the Greek world, but I am absolutely sure that his description is not true of Sparta and its Helots, who were enslaved in a system far more severe than that known to the ante-bellum South because of their "race." Also, my understanding is that the early Church's earliest and most significant interaction with slavery would have been with Roman slavery. I somehow don't think that all of the historic slave revolts occurred because Roman slaves were merely dissatisfied with waiting until they were thirty before receiving manumission. Further my understanding from reading Orlando Patterson is that all systems of slavery had the humiliation and social death of the slave as a common feature.
Let me emphasize, no thinking person can be anything but repulsed by every form of slavery. Through its message that all men are moral beings created in God's image, Christianity had in it the capacity to end slavery. In fact, it eventually did. But the issue of what I owe today because of something no one in my family was ever involved with is a completely different moral and legal question.
Another example of the great liberal tradition of free speech
Keeping its reputation for neutral commentary intact, CNN reports that Hecklers interrupt Cheney speech in this article:
First point, why is it that heckling and disruption seems to be a practice more common on the left than the right? While I am sure that examples of similar activities by the right can be gleaned from the record, it seems to be something like liberal bias in the media, the left uses these practices on an order of magnitude more often than the right. It probably has something to do with the influence of the Communists. [Jeez, I hope that doesn't sound nutty. Look, there really were people who either identified themselves as Communists, or were favorably disposed to Communism, in America from the 1920s and thereafter, and people with that ideology or mindset really did play a role in various leftist organizations, and I imagine that the tactics of those people and that ideology did bleed into the cultural "memes" of that part of the political spectrum. The New Left was largely influenced by those people. On the right, the analogous group is probably the Libertarians, which doesn't really encourage one to take over the streets in protest - buy the streets, maybe, but steal them, never.OK, now I'm ready for the reasoned and temperate charges of being a McCarthyite bent on stifling free-speech through the "terror" that such "guilt by accusation" creates.]
Second, Cheney "ducked" questions? That's what CNN said, but in fact Cheney referred anyone interested to Halliburton's website which provides an explanation that there really is no scandal in the Halliburton case inasmuch as the issue turns on whether the estimates of collecting cost-overruns were "reasonable." But, oddly, I couldn't find a link to the Halliburton site or to Cheney's speech in the CNN post. I did find a link to the Halliburton site at Byron York at National Review Online in the aptly entitled "Cheney and Halliburton : The News You Haven’t Heard." I guess the CNN reporter was too busy to provide the link so that readers could go to the "primary source." Amazing, in this day and age, CNN is still restrict the flow of information to favor its themes.
Keeping its reputation for neutral commentary intact, CNN reports that Hecklers interrupt Cheney speech in this article:
Hecklers interrupted Vice President Dick Cheney as he talked Wednesday about corporate fraud, a topic he ducked later when asked about the company he used to run that's under investigation.
First point, why is it that heckling and disruption seems to be a practice more common on the left than the right? While I am sure that examples of similar activities by the right can be gleaned from the record, it seems to be something like liberal bias in the media, the left uses these practices on an order of magnitude more often than the right. It probably has something to do with the influence of the Communists. [Jeez, I hope that doesn't sound nutty. Look, there really were people who either identified themselves as Communists, or were favorably disposed to Communism, in America from the 1920s and thereafter, and people with that ideology or mindset really did play a role in various leftist organizations, and I imagine that the tactics of those people and that ideology did bleed into the cultural "memes" of that part of the political spectrum. The New Left was largely influenced by those people. On the right, the analogous group is probably the Libertarians, which doesn't really encourage one to take over the streets in protest - buy the streets, maybe, but steal them, never.OK, now I'm ready for the reasoned and temperate charges of being a McCarthyite bent on stifling free-speech through the "terror" that such "guilt by accusation" creates.]
Second, Cheney "ducked" questions? That's what CNN said, but in fact Cheney referred anyone interested to Halliburton's website which provides an explanation that there really is no scandal in the Halliburton case inasmuch as the issue turns on whether the estimates of collecting cost-overruns were "reasonable." But, oddly, I couldn't find a link to the Halliburton site or to Cheney's speech in the CNN post. I did find a link to the Halliburton site at Byron York at National Review Online in the aptly entitled "Cheney and Halliburton : The News You Haven’t Heard." I guess the CNN reporter was too busy to provide the link so that readers could go to the "primary source." Amazing, in this day and age, CNN is still restrict the flow of information to favor its themes.
Pledge News
The United States government is asking for a rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit. The grounds appear to include Newdow'slack of custody of his daughter. Was the United States a party to the original case, or is there some special standing rule in this kind of case?
I'm back from looking at the caption of the case, and the answer is that everyone, including William Jefferson Clinton and the United States Congess, were defendants. I wonder if they had to be made defendants. It seems to me that suing the school district would have been enough. Just wondering.
The United States government is asking for a rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit. The grounds appear to include Newdow'slack of custody of his daughter. Was the United States a party to the original case, or is there some special standing rule in this kind of case?
I'm back from looking at the caption of the case, and the answer is that everyone, including William Jefferson Clinton and the United States Congess, were defendants. I wonder if they had to be made defendants. It seems to me that suing the school district would have been enough. Just wondering.
Friday, August 09, 2002
West Nile Virus Alert - Or Maybe Not
Instapundit.: has this post:
Professor Reynolds follows up in a later post to this article which announces that the disease has been confirmed for Knox County Tennessee.
I dunno. The same symptoms have been working their way through my office here in Fresno, California. My secretary had that "bug" several weeks ago, I got it last week, and now Penner has it. I haven't heard anyone saying West Nile has gotten this far, and this part of the world, basically being a desert, is not big on mosquitos.
Instapundit.: has this post:
"WHO CARES ABOUT WEST NILE VIRUS?" Asks Rachel Lucas. Yeah, it's not exactly the Black Death. Though I wonder if it's not more widespread than people think. There's a "bug" going around here that involves a week of headaches followed by a couple of weeks feeling generally worn out and crappy. (I've had it; I'm on week 3). If it were West Nile, would anyone know? (And I haven't seen a crow in weeks. There were lots last year.) Probably nothing, but as I reach for the Tylenol, it's crossed my mind.
Professor Reynolds follows up in a later post to this article which announces that the disease has been confirmed for Knox County Tennessee.
I dunno. The same symptoms have been working their way through my office here in Fresno, California. My secretary had that "bug" several weeks ago, I got it last week, and now Penner has it. I haven't heard anyone saying West Nile has gotten this far, and this part of the world, basically being a desert, is not big on mosquitos.
Reflections on the meaning of choice
Professor Reynolds at Instapundit has another quick post on the anomaly that the "right to choose" really means "the pregnant mother's right to choose to have an abortion, but not the father's right to choose anything whatsoever." The hypocritical position of the "pro-choice" camp seems to be a recurrent theme with him - see my post from June 17, 2002 - but I am not sure why inasmuch as I believe that his is not an opponent of abortion. Anyhow, he writes, and links, as edited by me, as follows:
Actually, I think I do have some idea of what the underlying issue is. Back when I was a callow youth, I was far more entranced with the intellectual thrill of libertarianism. I used to amuse myself with flanking the Left on the Left on the issue of abortion just to watch the amusing results that would follow. I would get some committed advocate of the "right to choose" to commit to that principle, then I'd turn the knife with a line of questions about the man's right to choose. Invariably I'd get answers to the effect that that was different - he was just having fun and had to pay. [What was she doing? Her tax returns?] Lampooning hypocrisy is always amusing. Back then I was ambivalent on the issue of abortion. I really didn't come around until law school when I read a law review article essentially arguing from Leibniz's theory of the Monad that since it would be immoral to kill a person "now," it is just as immoral to kill that person at any point before "now." [I am sure that seems weird, but it makes sense to me. I am not sure if a fetus is "alive," (particularly under the nihilistic rules of debate that have been engineered by the pro-choice side) but I'm pretty sure that it would be wrong to kill you - yes, you - and I am pretty sure that it would have been wrong to kill you anytime today, or yesterday, or ten years ago, or anytime anyone would care to name. Since it would have been immoral to kill you when you were a fetus, it is equally wrong to kill anyone else at the same age. That's what I'm pretty sure about, but if you get to the same result through a different line of thought, God bless you.] But even in my ambivalence, I knew that the "right to choose" is basically hypocritical in principle and in its smug assumption about which sentient living beings are not entitled to "choose."
Professor Reynolds at Instapundit has another quick post on the anomaly that the "right to choose" really means "the pregnant mother's right to choose to have an abortion, but not the father's right to choose anything whatsoever." The hypocritical position of the "pro-choice" camp seems to be a recurrent theme with him - see my post from June 17, 2002 - but I am not sure why inasmuch as I believe that his is not an opponent of abortion. Anyhow, he writes, and links, as edited by me, as follows:
DAHLIA LITHWICK writes about a man's right to choose in Slate. It's not a bad piece.... There's rather a lot of hypocrisy, which Lithwick doesn't really address, in the juncture between the way abortion is treated ("my body, my choice!") and the way child-support is treated ("he got her pregnant, he should pay!"). Perhaps Richard Bennett will have something to say on this topic.
Actually, I think I do have some idea of what the underlying issue is. Back when I was a callow youth, I was far more entranced with the intellectual thrill of libertarianism. I used to amuse myself with flanking the Left on the Left on the issue of abortion just to watch the amusing results that would follow. I would get some committed advocate of the "right to choose" to commit to that principle, then I'd turn the knife with a line of questions about the man's right to choose. Invariably I'd get answers to the effect that that was different - he was just having fun and had to pay. [What was she doing? Her tax returns?] Lampooning hypocrisy is always amusing. Back then I was ambivalent on the issue of abortion. I really didn't come around until law school when I read a law review article essentially arguing from Leibniz's theory of the Monad that since it would be immoral to kill a person "now," it is just as immoral to kill that person at any point before "now." [I am sure that seems weird, but it makes sense to me. I am not sure if a fetus is "alive," (particularly under the nihilistic rules of debate that have been engineered by the pro-choice side) but I'm pretty sure that it would be wrong to kill you - yes, you - and I am pretty sure that it would have been wrong to kill you anytime today, or yesterday, or ten years ago, or anytime anyone would care to name. Since it would have been immoral to kill you when you were a fetus, it is equally wrong to kill anyone else at the same age. That's what I'm pretty sure about, but if you get to the same result through a different line of thought, God bless you.] But even in my ambivalence, I knew that the "right to choose" is basically hypocritical in principle and in its smug assumption about which sentient living beings are not entitled to "choose."
Thursday, August 08, 2002
Penner will want the Product Defect case
Via Mark Shea comes this news article - NOLA.com: Newflash:
It's kind of a "bad news/good news" situation. The good news is that no one got eaten; the bad news is that their P.I. claim may not be worth as much. [They might - just might - have a pretty decent emotional distress claim.] Penner is willing to learn cajun and Napoleonic Civil Law if something can be worked out.
Via Mark Shea comes this news article - NOLA.com: Newflash:
A platform at the Aquarium of the Americas collapsed Wednesday evening, dumping 10 people straight into a tank teeming with sharks.
It's kind of a "bad news/good news" situation. The good news is that no one got eaten; the bad news is that their P.I. claim may not be worth as much. [They might - just might - have a pretty decent emotional distress claim.] Penner is willing to learn cajun and Napoleonic Civil Law if something can be worked out.
A further entry into the Janis Ian school of persuasion.
Via Instapunditwho has a nice point that the left looks for heretics, while the right looks for converts comes this post from Semi-Daily Journal: More Evidence That Mickey Kaus Has Joined the Neoconservatives who are concerned that Mickey Kause, instead of focusing on the problem of starvation, criticized a not untypically slanted poll used by an advocacy group. Semi-Daily Journal writes:
Well, there you have it. In the discussion of public policies only one perspective is possible. The fact that these guys have enough experience to describe a standard four-step process by which neoliberals evolve into neoconservatives should make them wonder if they are possible doing something wrong.
Via Instapunditwho has a nice point that the left looks for heretics, while the right looks for converts comes this post from Semi-Daily Journal: More Evidence That Mickey Kaus Has Joined the Neoconservatives who are concerned that Mickey Kause, instead of focusing on the problem of starvation, criticized a not untypically slanted poll used by an advocacy group. Semi-Daily Journal writes:
A relatively normal person would say that the first is a more important world problem. But what gets Mickey Kaus outraged and excited is the second.
Kaus has thus passed through the third of the four stages of becoming a Rhinoceros... excuse me, a neoconservative.
The first stage is to hold that the flaws--the mighty flaws--of the center-left in American politics are important enough to more-or-less balance the flaws of the right. The second stage is to start making desperate and implausible excuses for Republican politicians and functionaries. The third stage is to lose contact with the substance of public policy issues, and focus instead on intellectual and rhetorical "errors" made by those left of center. And the fourth stage is to start acclaiming right-wing political hacks as noble thinkers, and right-wing office holders as bold and far-sighted leaders with a plan to guide us to utopia.
There's still time for Kaus to return to his neoliberal roots. But not much.
Well, there you have it. In the discussion of public policies only one perspective is possible. The fact that these guys have enough experience to describe a standard four-step process by which neoliberals evolve into neoconservatives should make them wonder if they are possible doing something wrong.
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
Yet another reason about why it's cool to be Catholic
Disputations, who is adumbrating the "Top 10 Reasons to Join the Dominicans," makes a very persuasive case with Point Number 2:
And he has the textual authority to support it. Cool, I'm almost a Dominican.
Disputations, who is adumbrating the "Top 10 Reasons to Join the Dominicans," makes a very persuasive case with Point Number 2:
2. Arguing in bars is part of the founding spirituality of the Order. (See para. 15 of the Libellus.)
And he has the textual authority to support it. Cool, I'm almost a Dominican.
Win some, Lose some
Here's an interesting example of how thoughtless prejudices can cause someone to shoot herself in the foot. A few weeks ago, I read and commented favorably on Janis Ian's argument in favor of a loosening of copyright laws. I thought, and still think, that her arguments were persuasive in light of the anecdotal but empirical experiences she cited. Now, though, Mark Shea has posted his recent corespondence with Janis Ian on of all things a casual slur on Catholicism:
Now, the last thing that Janis Ian intended to discuss was the Catholic church. Her interest is copyright law. She used what seemed to her to be an absolute ironclad example of a rigid, unchanging authoritarian structure. She clearly felt that Shea's comments came from left-field, which it did, given her subject, which was copyright law.
I am not entirely comfortable with the practice of seizing on someone's incidental statement in order to score points about some groups victimization or the speaker's insensitivity. Too much of that goes on already, which then make the public discussion about who is more sensitive than whom, and who is a greater victim. But, you know, Shea is right. Little hit and run comments, planted assumptions and gratuitous swipes are how conventional wisdom gets rooted. Every trial attorney knows why it's important to protect the record. Because anyone involved in persuasion knows that lies will be accepted as true if they are repeated often enough without response.
More important, look at Janis Ian. Why did she let herself get distracted by this issue? Her issue is copyright, and her argument was not advanced at all by her parochial political view about the Catholic church, particularly since it furnishes a motivation for this potential fellow-traveler to lose interest in her case.
Postscript I actually traced through the comments and discussion elicited by Shea's post. I have rarely seen such virulent anti-Catholic bigotry outside the pages of various pamphlets that the - I believe - Seventh Day Adventist keep insisting on dropping off at my residence. I expect that from the Seventh Day Adventist. I am only moderately surprised when I hear it from Protestants. After all, we are playing for what are in essence competing teams. [To continue the metaphor, however, sportsmanship and the acknowledgement that the Game is bigger than the teams is always essential.]
The people posting on Janis Ian's website are most probably not religious. The milieu and the tenor of the comments indicate a secular bent. In other words, a secular tolerant liberal bent that accepts as a "planted assumption" (a) the KKK was never anti-Catholic, (b) the Catholic church has always been the leader in resisting any positive social change, (c) the Catholic church promotes bigotry among its -presumably - bigoted membership, (d) some odd logic that Catholics prevented an examination of Pius XII nefarious conduct until recently, (e) an bizarre hit-and-run about Catholics parodoxical bigotry toward homosexuals at the same time that the Church was sheltering homosexual pedophiles by the legion.
The tenor of the comments were ignorant, smug and self-assured. Remember what I said about the great danger being the "planted assumption," the casual acceptance of a fiction as a touchpoint of analysis? It's already here and the danger is the unchurched.
It seems that Ms. Ian was just playing to her audience.
List me as a deserter from her Copyright crusade.
Here's an interesting example of how thoughtless prejudices can cause someone to shoot herself in the foot. A few weeks ago, I read and commented favorably on Janis Ian's argument in favor of a loosening of copyright laws. I thought, and still think, that her arguments were persuasive in light of the anecdotal but empirical experiences she cited. Now, though, Mark Shea has posted his recent corespondence with Janis Ian on of all things a casual slur on Catholicism:
Remember Janis Ian? ("At Seventeen", "Society's Child"). Somebody sent me a link to some screed she posted on her site about evil music corporations which included a rather silly and gratuitous swipe at Catholics. So I wrote to her board to point out that it was a silly and gratuitous swipe. Various people wrote back (one memorable poster lectured me to study European history and helpfully explained that the Ku Klux Klan has nothing against Catholics). Then, Janis replied too. Shut up, she explained and threatened to silence my criticism. Then she offered excuses. I replied again. Better read it now, before she deletes the thread in the spirit of openness and tolerance.
Now, the last thing that Janis Ian intended to discuss was the Catholic church. Her interest is copyright law. She used what seemed to her to be an absolute ironclad example of a rigid, unchanging authoritarian structure. She clearly felt that Shea's comments came from left-field, which it did, given her subject, which was copyright law.
I am not entirely comfortable with the practice of seizing on someone's incidental statement in order to score points about some groups victimization or the speaker's insensitivity. Too much of that goes on already, which then make the public discussion about who is more sensitive than whom, and who is a greater victim. But, you know, Shea is right. Little hit and run comments, planted assumptions and gratuitous swipes are how conventional wisdom gets rooted. Every trial attorney knows why it's important to protect the record. Because anyone involved in persuasion knows that lies will be accepted as true if they are repeated often enough without response.
More important, look at Janis Ian. Why did she let herself get distracted by this issue? Her issue is copyright, and her argument was not advanced at all by her parochial political view about the Catholic church, particularly since it furnishes a motivation for this potential fellow-traveler to lose interest in her case.
Postscript I actually traced through the comments and discussion elicited by Shea's post. I have rarely seen such virulent anti-Catholic bigotry outside the pages of various pamphlets that the - I believe - Seventh Day Adventist keep insisting on dropping off at my residence. I expect that from the Seventh Day Adventist. I am only moderately surprised when I hear it from Protestants. After all, we are playing for what are in essence competing teams. [To continue the metaphor, however, sportsmanship and the acknowledgement that the Game is bigger than the teams is always essential.]
The people posting on Janis Ian's website are most probably not religious. The milieu and the tenor of the comments indicate a secular bent. In other words, a secular tolerant liberal bent that accepts as a "planted assumption" (a) the KKK was never anti-Catholic, (b) the Catholic church has always been the leader in resisting any positive social change, (c) the Catholic church promotes bigotry among its -presumably - bigoted membership, (d) some odd logic that Catholics prevented an examination of Pius XII nefarious conduct until recently, (e) an bizarre hit-and-run about Catholics parodoxical bigotry toward homosexuals at the same time that the Church was sheltering homosexual pedophiles by the legion.
The tenor of the comments were ignorant, smug and self-assured. Remember what I said about the great danger being the "planted assumption," the casual acceptance of a fiction as a touchpoint of analysis? It's already here and the danger is the unchurched.
It seems that Ms. Ian was just playing to her audience.
List me as a deserter from her Copyright crusade.
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
Remember how fun it was to parse Clinton?
Mullings: An American Cyber-column By Rich Galen has noted this recent Clintonism:
Which sparked this hypothetical Clinton volunteer interview masterfully written by Mr. Galen:
Just another example of why it is so very important to pay attention to exactly what that man says.
Mullings: An American Cyber-column By Rich Galen has noted this recent Clintonism:
Speaking of fightin' words, the Former President Forever, Bill Clinton, was quoted while speakin in - of all places - Canada saying that "if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."
Which sparked this hypothetical Clinton volunteer interview masterfully written by Mr. Galen:
SGT: You said that you wanted to die for Israel?
CLINTON: That's not exactly what I said. What I said was "if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die."
SGT: Did you know that neither Iraq nor Iran border the Jordan River?
CLINTON: Imagine that.
SGT: Did you know that Iraq would have to march all the way across Syria or Jordan before they got to Israel?
CLINTON: Hmm. Really?
SGT: And that Iran would have to cross Iraq AND Syria or Jordan before they got to Israel?
CLINTON: That far. Who knew?
SGT: Mr. Clinton what about the notion of Iraq launching missiles against Israel?
CLINTON: That would be bad.
SGT: But would that qualify as "coming across the Jordan River?"
CLINTON: No. I would have to say not. That would not qualify.
SGT: So it would take an actual soldier crossing the River for you to "grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die?"
CLINTON: I believe I said "army" the Iraqi or Iranian ARMY.
SGT: So, not a company?
CLINTON: Oh, no.
SGT: Battalion?
CLINTON: I don't think so.
SGT: A brigade? A division? A corps?
CLINTON: You know, I always wanted to ask the difference between a brigade and a division, but I had to practice that saluting.
SGT: Next -
CLINTON: And, there would have to be a ditch. An actual ditch. I said I would "get in a ditch." If there were no ditch, I believe a fair-minded person would agree that Israel had not kept its part of the bargain.
SGT: This is a desert. We don't have that many ditches.
CLINTON: Well, then ...
SGT: These men standing behind you. Are they willing to fight also?
CLINTON: I can't speak for them. They're my security detail.
SGT: (To a Secret Service Agent) Would you be willing to watch this man "get in a ditch, and fight and die?"
AGENT: (Not smiling) We've watched him do worse.
Just another example of why it is so very important to pay attention to exactly what that man says.
Japan was "days away from testing it own nuclear bomb" according to this article. Consider the article for what it's worth as an exercise in alternate history. The chance of this story first being revealed nearly 60 years after the fact is extremely slight.
More on Gary Wills
Andrew Sullivan's gives a positive review of Gary Wills. As I predicted there is much in Wills' writing that is very seductive and intellectually thrilling. He does have a way of packaging old nostrums in a manner that makes them seem fresh. Here is one show-stopper that appealled to Sullivan :
That's right, Gary Wills [and it appears Andrew Sullivan] are promoting the Protestant interpretation of that seminal passage. I think as a Catholic child, the first two things my parents taught me were: (a) the Pope is infallible only on matters of morality and religion and (b) "thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church." Heck, that's probably the only passage in the Bible I have memorized. Until earlier this year, I had no idea that the Protestants separate the rock (Peter) from the rock upon which the church is founded, and it just seems like a bit of an interpretive stretch.
So, is Sullivan heading over to the Anglicans? Nope, because he has this next passage:
This seems like a very orthodox position. The third thing I learned as a child was that since the Church had compiled the Bible in the first place, it was the the proper agency to interpret it.
But, Sullivan and Wills still have a problem. All of the arguments about sola fide and tradition are really about authority. All Christian denomination explicitly or implicitly use tradition in interpreting the Bible. But they all don't agree about who gets do the interpreting. The Protestants are Protestants because they don't trust the Catholic church to get the interpretation right. Catholics in contrast concede that the Church - in the sense of the magisterium - gets final say. Sullivan acknowledges that "we have no other authority." At some point, the whole reason for having authority is to use that authority authoritatively.
Andrew Sullivan's gives a positive review of Gary Wills. As I predicted there is much in Wills' writing that is very seductive and intellectually thrilling. He does have a way of packaging old nostrums in a manner that makes them seem fresh. Here is one show-stopper that appealled to Sullivan :
And he quotes Augustine to show how:
"When Peter was told, 'I will give you the keys of heaven's kingdom, and what you tie on earth will have been tied in heaven, what you untie on earth will have been untied in heaven,' he was standing for the entire church, which does not collapse though it is beaten, in this world, by every kind of trial, as if by rain, flood, and tempest. It is founded on a Stone [Petra], from which Peter took his name Stone-founded [Petrus]; for the Stone did not take its name from the Stone-Founded, but the Stone-Founded from the Stone - as Christ does not take his name from Christians, but Christians from Christ.... Because the Stone was Christ."
That's right, Gary Wills [and it appears Andrew Sullivan] are promoting the Protestant interpretation of that seminal passage. I think as a Catholic child, the first two things my parents taught me were: (a) the Pope is infallible only on matters of morality and religion and (b) "thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church." Heck, that's probably the only passage in the Bible I have memorized. Until earlier this year, I had no idea that the Protestants separate the rock (Peter) from the rock upon which the church is founded, and it just seems like a bit of an interpretive stretch.
So, is Sullivan heading over to the Anglicans? Nope, because he has this next passage:
Why not just reject the "stone-founded" and become a Protestant? The answer is an obvious one: Because Jesus instituted this unifying element in the church and because we have no other source of authority. But what about the Bible, as Protestants argue? Because, quite simply, the Bible is not independent of the church. It was compiled by the early church; its very contents were arrived at by a process of debate and chance and institutional combat. The Bible is a product of tradition - not the other way round. Our very faith as Christians is dependent on a legacy of fallible human beings remembering, believing, questioning and praying. We have no other way to know the meaning of the God of the New Testament. This is our human inheritance - of a divine revelation.
This seems like a very orthodox position. The third thing I learned as a child was that since the Church had compiled the Bible in the first place, it was the the proper agency to interpret it.
But, Sullivan and Wills still have a problem. All of the arguments about sola fide and tradition are really about authority. All Christian denomination explicitly or implicitly use tradition in interpreting the Bible. But they all don't agree about who gets do the interpreting. The Protestants are Protestants because they don't trust the Catholic church to get the interpretation right. Catholics in contrast concede that the Church - in the sense of the magisterium - gets final say. Sullivan acknowledges that "we have no other authority." At some point, the whole reason for having authority is to use that authority authoritatively.
Interesting article on recent scholarship calling into question the provenance and significance of Jefferson's "wall of separation" concept. According to this article Church, state 'wall' not idea of Jefferson -- The Washington Times the modern use of that concept had its roots in fear of Catholicism.
This seems in line with the decision in PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS where the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law intended to eradicate Catholic parochial education. A conservative Supreme Court relied upon substantive due process to hold the Oregon law unconstitutional:
It always seemed odd to me that a Conservative court relying on substantive due process managed to rule in favor of Catholic parochial education. Undoubtedly, had the same issue come up several years later before the "progressive" Roosevelt court, there would have been a different conclusion.
Postscript According to William Sulik: Hugo Black was a well-known anti-catholic bigot:
I am also seeing other site connect that attitude to Black's involvement in the KKK. There is an interesting observation in there about how human reason works. Prejudices and passions in one area often pave the road for logical leaps in another. Does this mean that modern Constitutional law on Church-State relations are illegitimate given the hostile animus that may have initially informed it. It may be, but not, I feel, for that reason. Too many discussions today are investigations into motivations, instead of principles. Let's face it, motivations are a dime a dozen; the real issue should be the principles. It's the principles that really should be neutral, not the reasons for choosing the neutral principle.
This seems in line with the decision in PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS where the Supreme Court struck down an Oregon law intended to eradicate Catholic parochial education. A conservative Supreme Court relied upon substantive due process to hold the Oregon law unconstitutional:
Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S. Ct. 625, 29 A. L. R. 1146, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children [268 U.S. 510, 535] under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
It always seemed odd to me that a Conservative court relying on substantive due process managed to rule in favor of Catholic parochial education. Undoubtedly, had the same issue come up several years later before the "progressive" Roosevelt court, there would have been a different conclusion.
Postscript According to William Sulik: Hugo Black was a well-known anti-catholic bigot:
Hugo Black and the Wall of Separation. Here's a link to a story in the Washington Times noting that Justice Hugo Black hatred of Catholicism was behind his building of a Wall of Separation, whereby the State could push around religion. I meant to bring it up yesterday -- however, this really isn't a new finding. Black's hatred was well documented years ago -- I was going to cite to some passages in a bio I have of Black, but I can't seem to locate the book. FWIW, the book is by Gerald Dunne -- Hugo Black and the Judicial Revolution.
I am also seeing other site connect that attitude to Black's involvement in the KKK. There is an interesting observation in there about how human reason works. Prejudices and passions in one area often pave the road for logical leaps in another. Does this mean that modern Constitutional law on Church-State relations are illegitimate given the hostile animus that may have initially informed it. It may be, but not, I feel, for that reason. Too many discussions today are investigations into motivations, instead of principles. Let's face it, motivations are a dime a dozen; the real issue should be the principles. It's the principles that really should be neutral, not the reasons for choosing the neutral principle.
Lane Core, Jr. spots the heresy of modalism in Andrew Sullivan and Garry Wills over at The Blog from the Core - America's Small-Town Weblog. I hate to think of St. Augustine as a heretic, although it seems he did boot the analysis of predestination. It looks like he may have modalist tendencies.
Bad news out of India.The Nando Times reports:
Suspected Islamic militants lobbed a grenade and opened fire Tuesday on Hindu pilgrims in Kashmir, killing nine of them and wounding 27 others, police said.
Monday, August 05, 2002
Don't mess with Fresno
According to the HoustonChronicle:
The top NFL draft pick starts the game tonight on Monday Night Football. Oh, did I mention that David Carr is from Fresno. Between Carr and Victor Davis Hanson, Fresno is turning into a vital wellspring of American culture. [Be afraid. Be very afraid.]
According to the HoustonChronicle:
The most alarming aspect of the fight for the Texans was the surprise attempt at peacemaking by Texans rookie quarterback David Carr, who was quickly directed out of the fray by McKinney.
"I was just trying to get my guys out of there," Carr said. "You don't want any fights out there. I think it just kind of shows how close we're becoming as a team."
Nevertheless, it was made clear to Carr that he was to leave future physical confrontations to his teammates.
"I told David that I was going to clothesline him the next time I see him getting into a fight," Texans running back Jonathan Wells said. "We don't need for him to be getting involved in that kind of stuff."
The top NFL draft pick starts the game tonight on Monday Night Football. Oh, did I mention that David Carr is from Fresno. Between Carr and Victor Davis Hanson, Fresno is turning into a vital wellspring of American culture. [Be afraid. Be very afraid.]
Sunday, August 04, 2002
The Burden of History
Ono Ekeh at Ono's thoughts has written a thoughtful response to my August 2d post on the slavery reparations debate. Ono acknowledges my point that this area is one where emotion can readily overtake reason, and further argues that emotional reactions are entirely appropriate in this area. Ono is certainly right to a certain extent. One should not lose sight of the fact that the great historical tragedies - e.g. slavery, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Irish Potato Famine, the slaughter of Hopi by Navaho, the Aztec practice of systematic using subject tribes as a food source - involve human beings. I am sure that Ono can construct arguments supporting the principle of slavery reparations and I look forward to discussing them.
Ono makes an interesting comment about the role that history should have on our contemporary attitudes. Ono writes:
Ono's argument seems to be a syllogism composed of three parts: (a) slavery was an injustice, (b) the patrimony of the slaves' descendants is the fruit of slavery, and (c) reparations should be paid. Every thinking person will concede (a). The second clause is more debateable. There are vast pockets of continuing poverty in America - such as the Appalachians - that do not owe their patrimony to slavery. But for the most part, a thinking person would concede the point to some extent, but not entirely.
The third clause of the syllogism is more problematic because it ignores the question of who is responsible for paying the reparations. Presumably, it should be all Americans, but since all Americans will not receive the reparation payments, the burden will fall on all non-African-American residents. Now, the issue of justice and fairness raises itself. Why is it proper to tax the Hmongs in Fresno who arrived after the Vietnam War? Why is it right to tax people in the North whose war sacrifices ended slavery? Why is it fair to tax a certain Irish-American attorney who was prevented from attending U.C. Berkeley Law School because of his race and whose ancestors arrived on American shores after being starved and oppressed in Ireland in 1860, only to be drafted, probably after rioting against the draft?
I don't think it is fair to chalk up these questions to moral obtuseness. Slavery reparations is based on a claim of justice. Justice, though, requires that debts be paid by the debtor. Taking money away from someone who doesn't owe the debt to pay someone else's debt looks like extortion.
Ono's further point deals with burden that modern attitudes places on historical events:
But the Bible doesn't really condemn slavery. As I noted previously, slavery was the norm for pre-Modern non-Western Civilization. That is still true today in some parts of the world. Slavery would not have been abolished to the extent it has without the intervention of the West. The goal of Christianity was to ameliorate the suffering and evils associated with slavery, not end it as a social institution. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that Western Civilization uniquely decided that slavery was not consistent with natural law. I will, however, insist that such a conclusion would not have been reached without the development of natural law theory in the Catholic tradition.
And, ultimately, that is where my nerve gets rubbed raw. The patrimony of all Americans includes the abolition of slavery. It did not have to happen. In some parts of the world it hasn't been accomplished. Abolition was costly to accomplish. In America the cost was war; in Russia, the serfs had to pay for their freedom. But instead of viewing the historical experience as an example of human progress, the reparations ideas trivializes the courage of the Abolitionists and the sacrifice of Lincoln. Their accomplishments mean nothing, apparently.
Postscript One of the nice features of this blogging process is that it promotes further reflection through the dialectical processes unleashed by taking a public position. For example, I had assumed that the Catholic church had very little to say about the institution of slavery. My general sense is that the Church did not play a substantial role in the abolitionist debate that preceded the Civil War, unlike some churches like the Methodists who were split by the slavery issue. I was pleasantly surprised to find this article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Slavery and Christianity:
I haven't reviewed the sources cited in the article, but on the surface it does seem to document a lengthy and consistent opposition against slavery which does the Church credit. Again, it seems that the historical record is somewhat more complicated than we might initially want to believe.
Ono Ekeh at Ono's thoughts has written a thoughtful response to my August 2d post on the slavery reparations debate. Ono acknowledges my point that this area is one where emotion can readily overtake reason, and further argues that emotional reactions are entirely appropriate in this area. Ono is certainly right to a certain extent. One should not lose sight of the fact that the great historical tragedies - e.g. slavery, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Irish Potato Famine, the slaughter of Hopi by Navaho, the Aztec practice of systematic using subject tribes as a food source - involve human beings. I am sure that Ono can construct arguments supporting the principle of slavery reparations and I look forward to discussing them.
Ono makes an interesting comment about the role that history should have on our contemporary attitudes. Ono writes:
I simply think that if one is not outraged by the injustices that have taken place on these hallowed shores and one does not believe that those, whose patrimony is the fruit of those injustices, should receive reparations, then no argument is going work.
Ono's argument seems to be a syllogism composed of three parts: (a) slavery was an injustice, (b) the patrimony of the slaves' descendants is the fruit of slavery, and (c) reparations should be paid. Every thinking person will concede (a). The second clause is more debateable. There are vast pockets of continuing poverty in America - such as the Appalachians - that do not owe their patrimony to slavery. But for the most part, a thinking person would concede the point to some extent, but not entirely.
The third clause of the syllogism is more problematic because it ignores the question of who is responsible for paying the reparations. Presumably, it should be all Americans, but since all Americans will not receive the reparation payments, the burden will fall on all non-African-American residents. Now, the issue of justice and fairness raises itself. Why is it proper to tax the Hmongs in Fresno who arrived after the Vietnam War? Why is it right to tax people in the North whose war sacrifices ended slavery? Why is it fair to tax a certain Irish-American attorney who was prevented from attending U.C. Berkeley Law School because of his race and whose ancestors arrived on American shores after being starved and oppressed in Ireland in 1860, only to be drafted, probably after rioting against the draft?
I don't think it is fair to chalk up these questions to moral obtuseness. Slavery reparations is based on a claim of justice. Justice, though, requires that debts be paid by the debtor. Taking money away from someone who doesn't owe the debt to pay someone else's debt looks like extortion.
Ono's further point deals with burden that modern attitudes places on historical events:
The subject of Catholic moral reticence is has always been a troubling aspect of our tradition for me. Where were the strong moral Catholic voices during the horrors of slavery? There were very, very, very, few and and mostly weak ones at that. And by the way, there were not a few theological treatises produced during the time of the New World slavery and they produced well reasoned arguments for the practice. Thankfully, there were men like St. Peter Claver, who cared not for the voice of reason and trusted his conscience, emotion and moral intuition and cared for the poor souls of slaves as they were dragged of the boats to be sold.
But the Bible doesn't really condemn slavery. As I noted previously, slavery was the norm for pre-Modern non-Western Civilization. That is still true today in some parts of the world. Slavery would not have been abolished to the extent it has without the intervention of the West. The goal of Christianity was to ameliorate the suffering and evils associated with slavery, not end it as a social institution. It wasn't until the Enlightenment that Western Civilization uniquely decided that slavery was not consistent with natural law. I will, however, insist that such a conclusion would not have been reached without the development of natural law theory in the Catholic tradition.
And, ultimately, that is where my nerve gets rubbed raw. The patrimony of all Americans includes the abolition of slavery. It did not have to happen. In some parts of the world it hasn't been accomplished. Abolition was costly to accomplish. In America the cost was war; in Russia, the serfs had to pay for their freedom. But instead of viewing the historical experience as an example of human progress, the reparations ideas trivializes the courage of the Abolitionists and the sacrifice of Lincoln. Their accomplishments mean nothing, apparently.
Postscript One of the nice features of this blogging process is that it promotes further reflection through the dialectical processes unleashed by taking a public position. For example, I had assumed that the Catholic church had very little to say about the institution of slavery. My general sense is that the Church did not play a substantial role in the abolitionist debate that preceded the Civil War, unlike some churches like the Methodists who were split by the slavery issue. I was pleasantly surprised to find this article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Slavery and Christianity:
A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves. England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery" (Ernest Havet, "Le christianisme et ses origines", I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.
I haven't reviewed the sources cited in the article, but on the surface it does seem to document a lengthy and consistent opposition against slavery which does the Church credit. Again, it seems that the historical record is somewhat more complicated than we might initially want to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
